The aquatic biota of the now extinct lacustrine complex of the Mexico basin

The commonest organisms of the original Mexico lake complex are listed, including those that exist today in the Lago Viejo. In addition, a brief hydraulic history of this endorheic basin is given

Freshwater biological research in Mexico: A brief historical review

Apart from a couple of early papers in the 1600s, the development of freshwater biology as a science in Mexico began in the last century. Taxonomic studies were made especially on algae, aquatic insects, crustaceans, annelid worms and aquatic plants. The great impetus acquired by limnology in Europe and America in the first half of the 20th Century stimulated foreign researchers to come and work in Mexico. During this period the Instituto de Biologia, belonging to the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, was created in 1930. The Institute had a section of Hydrobiology that contributed to the limnological characterization of Mexican lakes and ponds. In 1962, the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Biologico-Pesqueras was created to bring together the work of several institutes working on the native ichthyofauna, the restocking of reservoirs, and aquaculture

The aquatic biota of the now excinct lacustrine complex of the Mexico basin

The Valley of Mexico is an endorheic basin (i.e. there is no natural outlet)lying on the highest portion of the Mexican Plateau (2240-2390 metresabove sea level) between 19°01'18" to 20°09'12" N and 98°31'58" to99°30'52" W. It is oval in shape, with a north-south axis 125 km in lengthand a shorter east-west axis of 90 km, averaging 7,868 km² in area(Alvarez & Navarro 1957; Mora 1991)

Freshwater biological research in Mexico; A brief historical review

The first notice of freshwater biological observations carried out inMexico is contained in the ancient nahuatl codexes. In these, freshwaterfishes, waterfowl and aquatic insects are depicted, showing capturemethods, techniques and limnological observations such as changes inthe water level of Lake Texcoco in 1519. All this information began withthe arrival of the aztecs to the Valley of Mexico in 1245. An "azteclimnology" is defined by Deevey (1957) as all of the observationsincluded in the codexes

Climate change considerations are fundamental to management of deep‐sea resource extraction

Climate change manifestation in the ocean, through warming, oxygen loss, increasing acidification, and changing particulate organic carbon flux (one metric of altered food supply), is projected to affect most deep‐ocean ecosystems concomitantly with increasing direct human disturbance. Climate drivers will alter deep‐sea biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, and may interact with disturbance from resource extraction activities or even climate geoengineering. We suggest that to ensure the effective management of increasing use of the deep ocean (e.g., for bottom fishing, oil and gas extraction, and deep‐seabed mining), environmental management and developing regulations must consider climate change. Strategic planning, impact assessment and monitoring, spatial management, application of the precautionary approach, and full‐cost accounting of extraction activities should embrace climate consciousness. Coupled climate and biological modeling approaches applied in the water and on the seafloor can help accomplish this goal. For example, Earth‐System Model projections of climate‐change parameters at the seafloor reveal heterogeneity in projected climate hazard and time of emergence (beyond natural variability) in regions targeted for deep‐seabed mining. Models that combine climate‐induced changes in ocean circulation with particle tracking predict altered transport of early life stages (larvae) under climate change. Habitat suitability models can help assess the consequences of altered larval dispersal, predict climate refugia, and identify vulnerable regions for multiple species under climate change. Engaging the deep observing community can support the necessary data provisioning to mainstream climate into the development of environmental management plans. To illustrate this approach, we focus on deep‐seabed mining and the International Seabed Authority, whose mandates include regulation of all mineral‐related activities in international waters and protecting the marine environment from the harmful effects of mining. However, achieving deep‐ocean sustainability under the UN Sustainable Development Goals will require integration of climate consideration across all policy sectors.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2020 The Authors. Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Lt

Deep-Sea Mining With No Net Loss of Biodiversity—An Impossible Aim

Deep-sea mining is likely to result in biodiversity loss, and the significance of this to ecosystem function is not known. “Out of kind” biodiversity offsets substituting one ecosystem type (e.g., coral reefs) for another (e.g., abyssal nodule fields) have been proposed to compensate for such loss. Here we consider a goal of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity and explore the challenges of applying this aim to deep seabed mining, based on the associated mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, remediate). We conclude that the industry cannot at present deliver an outcome of NNL. This results from the vulnerable nature of deep-sea environments to mining impacts, currently limited technological capacity to minimize harm, significant gaps in ecological knowledge, and uncertainties of recovery potential of deep-sea ecosystems. Avoidance and minimization of impacts are therefore the only presently viable means of reducing biodiversity losses from seabed mining. Because of these constraints, when and if deep-sea mining proceeds, it must be approached in a precautionary and step-wise manner to integrate new and developing knowledge. Each step should be subject to explicit environmental management goals, monitoring protocols, and binding standards to avoid serious environmental harm and minimize loss of biodiversity. “Out of kind” measures, an option for compensation currently proposed, cannot replicate biodiversity and ecosystem services lost through mining of the deep seabed and thus cannot be considered true offsets. The ecosystem functions provided by deep-sea biodiversity contribute to a wide range of provisioning services (e.g., the exploitation of fish, energy, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics), play an essential role in regulatory services (e.g., carbon sequestration) and are important culturally. The level of “acceptable” biodiversity loss in the deep sea requires public, transparent, and well-informed consideration, as well as wide agreement. If accepted, further agreement on how to assess residual losses remaining after the robust implementation of the mitigation hierarchy is also imperative. To ameliorate some of the inter-generational inequity caused by mining-associated biodiversity losses, and only after all NNL measures have been used to the fullest extent, potential compensatory actions would need to be focused on measures to improve the knowledge and protection of the deep sea and to demonstrate benefits that will endure for future generations

Past and Future Grand Challenges in Marine Ecosystem Ecology

International audienceFrontiers in Marine Science launched the Marine EcosystemsEcology (FMARS-MEE) section in2014, with a paper that identified eight grand challenges for the discipline (Borja, 2014). Sincethen, this section has published a total of 370 papers, including 336 addressing aspects of thosechallenges. As editors of the journal, with a wide range of marine ecology expertise, we felt it wastimely to evaluate research advances related to those challenges; and to update the scope of thesection to reflect the grand challenges we envision for the next 10 years. This output will matchwith the United Nations (UN) Decade on Oceans Science for Sustainable Development (DOSSD;Claudet et al., 2020), UN Decade of Ecosystems Restoration (DER;Young and Schwartz, 2019), andthe UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs;Visbeck et al., 2014

Successful Blue Economy Examples With an Emphasis on International Perspectives

Careful definition and illustrative case studies are fundamental work in developing a Blue Economy. As blue research expands with the world increasingly understanding its importance, policy makers and research institutions worldwide concerned with ocean and coastal regions are demanding further and improved analysis of the Blue Economy. Particularly, in terms of the management connotation, data access, monitoring, and product development, countries are making decisions according to their own needs. As a consequence of this lack of consensus, further dialogue including this cases analysis of the blue economy is even more necessary. This paper consists of four chapters: (I) Understanding the concept of Blue Economy, (II) Defining Blue economy theoretical cases, (III) Introducing Blue economy application cases and (IV) Providing an outlook for the future. Chapters (II) and (III) summarizes all the case studies into nine aspects, each aiming to represent different aspects of the blue economy. This paper is a result of knowledge and experience collected from across the global ocean observing community, and is only made possible with encouragement, support and help of all members. Despite the blue economy being a relatively new concept, we have demonstrated our promising exploration in a number of areas. We put forward proposals for the development of the blue economy, including shouldering global responsibilities to protect marine ecological environment, strengthening international communication and sharing development achievements, and promoting the establishment of global blue partnerships. However, there is clearly much room for further development in terms of the scope and depth of our collective understanding and analysis

Marine Biodiversity in the Caribbean: Regional Estimates and Distribution Patterns

This paper provides an analysis of the distribution patterns of marine biodiversity and summarizes the major activities of the Census of Marine Life program in the Caribbean region. The coastal Caribbean region is a large marine ecosystem (LME) characterized by coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrasses, but including other environments, such as sandy beaches and rocky shores. These tropical ecosystems incorporate a high diversity of associated flora and fauna, and the nations that border the Caribbean collectively encompass a major global marine biodiversity hot spot. We analyze the state of knowledge of marine biodiversity based on the geographic distribution of georeferenced species records and regional taxonomic lists. A total of 12,046 marine species are reported in this paper for the Caribbean region. These include representatives from 31 animal phyla, two plant phyla, one group of Chromista, and three groups of Protoctista. Sampling effort has been greatest in shallow, nearshore waters, where there is relatively good coverage of species records; offshore and deep environments have been less studied. Additionally, we found that the currently accepted classification of marine ecoregions of the Caribbean did not apply for the benthic distributions of five relatively well known taxonomic groups. Coastal species richness tends to concentrate along the Antillean arc (Cuba to the southernmost Antilles) and the northern coast of South America (Venezuela – Colombia), while no pattern can be observed in the deep sea with the available data. Several factors make it impossible to determine the extent to which these distribution patterns accurately reflect the true situation for marine biodiversity in general: (1) highly localized concentrations of collecting effort and a lack of collecting in many areas and ecosystems, (2) high variability among collecting methods, (3) limited taxonomic expertise for many groups, and (4) differing levels of activity in the study of different taxa